>The rangers get a bit upset when climbers walk over a bit of burnt soil but it is fine for the >Navy to bomb the crap out of the place.
Regular trampling damage by feet and wheels is actually quite a destructive process. In areas where vegetation but not repeatedly trampled, the soil surface tends to get stabilised by the formation of small 'litter dams' composed of leaf litter, sticks etc during rainfall events. These then in turn trap soil and the seedbed, and provide a good place for seed germination, and hence regrowth to occur.
In areas that get trampled, any regrowth, and these little litter dams get broken down between each rainfall event. Thus, reveg in these areas is minimised and each rainfall event can do maximum erosion damage. In areas where paths can collect water (e.g. those heading straight up/downhill) this produces a pretty effective conduit that can collect and funnel water downslope, magnifying the erosion further.
I'm no expert on the frequency of navy boming and soil loss, but unless they are able to hit the same area repeatedly it will turn over lots of soil in any one hit, but will be then left to regenerate for months/years. The impacts are also likely to be spread spatially, rather than along a discrete line, limiting the potential for the denuded area to spread. From the look of the airphotos of the range there isn't a big denuded area signifying substantial erosion from the bombing.
Having said all this, I'm still shirty that the safest/easiest/most solid rock at the point has been closed offhand, with little notice. The fire could present an opportunity to easily mark out a track to bayside that doesn't run straight along the fence too...
|